Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee 06 October 2010

06 Oct 2010 · S3 · Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee

Item of business

Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Macintosh, Ken Lab Eastwood Watch on SPTV

It is probably sensible to think of the amendments to which I will speak as being in three separate sub-groups: amendments 183, 184, 187, 203 to 206 are all to clarify the use of the term “deemed as” and replace it with the term “treated as”; amendment 185 addresses an ECHR issue to do with parental rights; and amendments 186 and 188 address the conditions under which the status of a relevant person should be terminated or reviewed.Amendments 183, 184, 187, 203 to 206 come from the Law Society, which takes the view that the use of language is confusing in this instance. A person either is, or is not, a relevant person. The hearing would not deem that a person fell within the definition, which is in section 185. Rather, it would decide that a person should be considered a relevant person, notwithstanding that he or she did not fall within the definition. It would be sensible to replace the term “deemed as” with “treated as”, which is what it means in that situation.Amendment 185 would address an issue that the committee will remember from stage 1. The bill will change the criteria that are applied to decide on a relevant person. The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 says that a relevant person is somebody“who ordinarily ... has charge of, or control over, the child.”In section 80, we replace that with the words“the individual has a significant involvement”with the child. The Law Society has concerns that the provision is insufficient to cover all those who have a right to respect for family life and, therefore, could be in breach of article 8 of the ECHR. Furthermore, I believe that a case that will address the issue is currently before the Supreme Court, which may be due to report in October.The Law Society suggests that, if we were to agree to amendment 185—I should say that amendment 184 is a paving amendment for amendment 185—the panel would have to take account of“a parent or other person who should, as a result of a family connection with the child, be involved in discussion at the children’s hearing”.I believe that the case law on the matter suggests that a blood relative will be taken into account. I suggest that the bill will need to address that important matter before stage 3, so I would welcome the minister’s comments on it.Amendments 186 and 188 address an issue that we highlighted in our stage 1 report and which was brought up by several witnesses to the committee, including our adviser, which is that there is no end point to a person’s being deemed to be—I hope that that will soon become “treated as”—a relevant person. In other words, the person could be a relevant person for the duration of the child’s life or simply for the duration of the child’s appearance before the children’s panel.There was a termination point under the previous system, and amendment 186 would introduce a termination point. I believe that the minister has lodged a similar amendment. At the moment, if a child has a succession of foster parents, for example, the initial foster parent would be the relevant person, and that would not be terminated. The amendment addresses that issue.I move amendment 183.

In the same item of business

The Convener (Karen Whitefield) Lab

Good morning. I open the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee’s 25th meeting in 2010. I remind all committee members and all in the public gall...

Search Hansard contributions

Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee 06 October 2010

In the same item of business